Ali is reported to have reached his condemnation verdict after the man admitted he did not know about abrogation. The pro-abrogation folk cite this narration to show that knowledge of abrogation is a litmus test for understanding the Quran and that a person who does not know abrogation is unqualified to talk about the Quran or preach to people!

In other words, the narration with those words implies that if you teach the Quran without pointing out abrogation, you would be prohibiting things that are mandated, because abrogation turned prohibitions into mandates.

As mentioned in this post, Ibn Salaama lists verse 2:219 as one of the abrogated verses and starts his discussion by saying, "God forbade intoxication in five verses of the Quran" and he lists 2:219 as one of those five!

If 2:219 forbade intoxication then why does he consider it abrogated? He did not bother to explain.

In his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 143, Ibn Salaama says that Chapter 109 "is all unabrogated". Then on the very next line, he says, "{And for you your religion} (109:6) was abrogated by the sword verse!"

In refuting the abrogation claim of 5:5/2:221 which he rejects, Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 114, asks the logical question "How can the former abrogate the latter?"

He asked that question to refute the claims made my some scholars that the abrogation case is the reverse; that it was 5:5 that was abrogated.

The verifier of his book, Dr. m. Ibrahim Faaris, agrees and quotes An-Nahhaas asking the same question.

Yet, Shu`la approves of the abrogation claim of 2:234/2:240 and does not comment on the abrogation claim of 33:50/33:52. He must have been aware of this inconsistency though, because he claimed that 2:240 was revealed before 2:234, but he did not offer any evidence to back that up.

Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his presentation of Abu-Abdillah Shu`la's book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 76, praises Shu`la for many things, among them is that he "put the opinions of the Sahaaba ahead of those who came after them."

But Shu`la adamantly rejected the Sahaaba's definition of naskh and insistently defended the second generation restriction of the meaning of the word to be abrogation only.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum